There’s No Business Or Year Of Culture and Month of Oxymorons Or Let the Dead Or The Great Divergence Or The Killers Or The White Kochasians Or YOU’RE FRIED!!

On impulse one evening I decided to visit the circus. The show was over and as the audience was leaving, I remained in my seat so as to avoid the crowds bunching at the exit. As I sat and looked around, I noticed a small man near the rear of the tent with a shovel and a large battered bucket. I could see that he was busy removing a steaming mound of elephant dung. After observing for a while, I became curious and made my way over to speak to him.

 ‘That looks like hard work’ I said

 He nodded but said nothing

 I persisted:

 ‘How long have you been at this old timer?’

 He paused from his work:

 ‘Must be nearly thirty years now’

 ‘So you must like it?’ I asked

 He turned and looked at me

 ‘Its absolutely awful’ he said.

 ‘I have to work seven days a week and not a holiday since I can last remember. The pay is lousy and there are no medical benefits’

‘What about the living conditions?,’ I asked

 ‘They are disgusting; I sleep in a small bunk behind the elephant stalls. The smell of elephant farts is overwhelming’

 ‘At least you have the camaraderie of the circus family’ I offered

 ‘Not at all’ he said, ‘I am despised and treated despicably. I have been here thirty years and not three people know me by name’

 ‘Wow that sounds really bad’ I said, -‘Why don’t you give it up and try to find something else?’

 ‘What?’

 He turned to face me;

 ‘And leave show business?’

 

We can only stand and stare in bewildered horror at developing conditions in Greece. In the face of ongoing and intensifying abuse, with no prospect of relief in the foreseeable future, why do Greeks seem determined carry on down this path? Why don’t Greeks seem to be able to see their own best interests?

 

Except of course this is all wrong, because there aren’t any Greeks. Because the majority of people living in the Greek territory have repeatedly voted to be part of Europe- which means they have voted not to be Greek- by definition.

 

To become a modem Germanic nation state (as Greece would need to be), means to be able to create and control your own finance, to make the laws and regulations that decide the way your society is run. Greeks have made it clear they do not want that. They do not want to be organised along Germanic lines- they want to be organised by Germans. I trust you can see the difference.

 

That a group should abandon the concept of modern Germanic independent nationhood is beyond comprehension to many people, especially of the left. Because this nationhood is central to the concept of economic rationale and the ‘left’. Without modern Germanic nationhood there can be no economic rationale and no ‘left’.

 

This stunned refusal to admit that a people can reject MG nationhood has given birth to the Oxymorons; a Greek chorus, that chants over and over: ‘SYRIZA has betrayed the Greek people!’

But you can’t betray the Greek people because there is no longer a Greek people to betray.

 

So why do the people living on the Greek territory want so badly to be European?

Because they distrust each other more than they distrust virtually anyone else. That is what a society made up of cultural constituencies is.

 

It is a failed state.

 

Both sides of the referendum debate; ‘in’ or ‘out’, offered extreme financial deprivation as a consequence of voting for them. Staying in the EU or leaving the EU inevitably involves long term suffering.

 

Both sides in the debate are cultural constituencies and cultural constituencies are not primarily interested in economic matters. And there is a reason for this: Cultural constituencies don’t care about economic matters because there is nothing that can be done about them. The choice is no longer a significant factor.

 

This point is of fundamental importance:

 

There is increasingly less and less an element of choice in the political and economic decisions that are being made in developed economies.

 

Margaret Thatcher famously said: ‘There Is No Alternative’ and after nearly fifty years of Monetarism her prognosis/proclamation is in the process of becoming indisputably true.

 

And since there is no longer any economic room for choice, the political basis for ‘left’ and ‘right’ is gone. What do they have to argue about? When people realise that there is no longer a significant economic choice they stop giving allegiance to traditional economic parties and instead give allegiance to cultural constituencies. This is what has happened in Greece.

But there is another, potentially frightening aspect of this to consider. Economic rationale has two component parts (that can be considered to be benefits), Economy is one and Rationalism is the other. When economic rationale goes, rationality goes with it. What happens when rationality is gone? Emotion takes over. There is clearly a psychological component to what we see unfolding in Greece and elsewhere.

Which brings us to Perry’s Cats.

 

Put in a bag and thrown in the river, the cats inside the bag try to kill each other in their last moments- what else can they do? For Schrödinger’s cat there was at least the possibility of survival. That’s not on offer – not this time around, if the river doesn’t kill you the other cats will.

 

This is the emotional content of cultural constituencies. Every cat in the Greek bag knows what is going to happen. There is no longer even an element of chance. So they fight each other. The blame each other. Which takes us to the United States of Everywhere.

 

The Business of America …Annie get your gun

 

The writing of F Scott Fitzgerald offers profound insights into American society, not the least of which is that the ‘Business Of America’ is and always has been… show business. Fitzgerald shows us that Americans conduct individual lives as though they are competing shows on Broadway. Everybody stands outside each respective theatre barking for custom and selling tickets. But the shows they want you to see are all the same.

 

Fitzgerald also understood that America is not interested in shaping the future, that has always been at best a secondary consideration; America is interested in shaping the past. Americans constantly want to impose order on what happened, when it happened, to whom it happened and why it happened.

The battle for American democracy and free speech is the freedom to tell individual and collective lies about the past. Contrary to what most people in the world believe, the American Dream is a dream about what did happen not what will happen.

 

In America there was never going to be any choice about the future because in America there was never any choice but capitalism. Even when there isn’t any capitalism anymore the choice is still only capitalism. Because in America culture and capitalism are one.

 

Nowhere better illustrated than in this startling cultural artefact:

 

The eponymous Annie, an archetypal German mädchen,

is dressed in faux Native American hides (I think they call this ‘cultural appropriation’ nowadays). She is surrounded by three men who are pretending to be American archetypes, except everyone knows there weren’t ever any Americans like this. They are all singing a song telling the girl that an inauthentic life of show business is the most authentic life anyone can have…

 

And everyone knows that the American rodeo circus was based on a myth but that doesn’t matter because anyway its a film of a stage musical of circus that never really was..

 

We know its all fake. They know we know. That is part of the ‘charm’ and since it is supposed to be ‘charming’ Americans expect the world to cheerfully take part.

 

Annie Is Divergent

 

When the USA elected Ronnie Regan to the Presidency it marked an irrevocable split with the rest of the globe. I don’t think any living American really understands the extent and the depth of this split and the way its effects persist to this day.

 

Intelligent Americans understand ‘Ronnie’ in the same way that they understand ‘Annie’, and they are surprised and somewhat resentful that everyone in the world couldn’t just go along. But they figure that with a little more musical jollying and a little more charm everyone can be persuaded. To see history ‘our’ way.

 

Unfortunately like Shirley Temple or JonBenét Ramsey, for the most part, the rest of the world is not buying. It’s a cultural thing. Think of Paul Craig Roberts defending Reaganomics and condemning Neo Liberalism without realising they are essentially the same thing.

This Charming Man

ron

 

The truth of the Ronnie Regan persona in as far as it can be found, is in his portrayal of Jack Browning:

‘a gangster, posing as a legitimate businessman’ (Wiki)

 

in the 1964 film ‘The Killers’ with Lee Marvin, John Cassavetes and Angie Dickinson- excellent actors all.

 

This was apparently the only time Reagan played a villain and I think he is eminently suited to portraying a crude and devious business man who is quickly seen to be a lot less than he appears at first sight. The story goes that Ronnie regretted playing a villain in his last role. Perhaps he didn’t like giving the gag away before the final act.

 

The premise of the film is that ‘The Killers’ don’t have to try too hard to kill the John Cassavetes character in the first reel, because he wants to die. He knows what the future is. Which reminds us of Greece and Perry’s Cats..

 

The Kochasians

 

 

trumpAnd Ronnie Reagan brings us to Donald Trump; a famous American self made man (except of course he isn’t). Trump is perhaps most well known as the central protagonist in ‘The Apprentice’ a programme that portrays Capitalism as soap opera. (The English version shows Capitalism as farce. If you have any doubt in your mind how low faith in Capitalism has fallen in England, you should watch a little of this programme).

 

The narrative behind the Apprentice is that of a prolonged Job interview that is punctuated by people being fired. This is especially odd as the candidates don’t actually have a job to be fired from yet.

Another example of fabricating history, which by the way, is the only thing any of these people would be capable of actually fabricating.

 

In the course of his Presidential campaign Trump recently ran into a little difficulty when he trespassed onto Republican Senator John McCains personal history myth. There was outrage in the media that Trump should impugn another Americans God Given Right to make stuff up about himself so as to make himself appear favourably in the public eye. As of writing this Trump has agreed to tone it down, after all, it’s the American Way.

 

Trump represents the WhiteKochasian cultural constituency. And he tells them stories about what happened. The more elaborate and fanciful these historical constructions are, the more his constituency likes it. Which is obviously going to be the case if you think about it.

 

And in case anyone is of the opinion that this is all happening in a ‘far away country about which we know little’ I would remind you that we are all living in the United States of Everywhere.

 

Now let’s go on with the show….

 

 

 

Advertisements

Fakirnomics or Don’t Shoot! or The Permanent Credit Economy and the Point of No Return

 article-2599719-1CED6A5F00000578-392_968x681

George Osborne Needs You To Borrow Billions To Make His Plans Work

The Huffington Post UK  | By Asa Bennett tp://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/12/05/george-osborne-debt-obr_n_6274264.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

Revealed: how the wealth gap holds back economic growth

OECD report rejects trickle-down economics, noting ‘sizeable and statistically negative impact’ of income inequality

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/dec/09/revealed-wealth-gap-oecd-report

 

If a believable mainstream justification for Quantitive Easing is possible, it must centre on the restructuring of national economies in the aftermath of the Financial Crisis.

Both the Bank of International Settlements and the International Monetary Fund have called on national governments to use the window of opportunity provided by QE to carry out this restructuring. Indeed, they have expressly stated on more than one occasion that QE is only really justifiable if this restructuring happens.

But attempts at restructuring have met with at best mixed success; not least because it is very hard to get a concrete idea of that this supposed restructuring would actually mean. How can we know if restructuring has successfully taken place? Well this question at least does have a clear answer that everyone can agree on: there will be renewed growth in the economy.

By this measurement the most successful examples of economic restructuring are Britain and America. Unlike Europe and Japan, which have been balancing on the edge of recession for the past six years, Britain and America have experienced some level of growth. So if we understand what has changed in Britain and America we will have a pretty good idea of what restructuring actually is.

Have banks and financial institutions in Britain and America fundamentally changed their structure or the way they operate?

No.

There has been some regulatory tinkering round the edges of speculative banking operations but the core activity of manufacturing derivatives is largely untouched, even bonuses have not been substantially affected.

Does the financial sector play a smaller role in the economy now?

No.

Financial services continue to play an ever -growing role in the economies of Britain and America, there has been no real resurgence in manufacturing or traditional industries. These economies continue to be increasingly unbalanced in historical terms.

The growth we have seen in the domestic financial economy of Britain and America has centered on asset growth in the form of stocks and bonds, new derivatives and profits from privatised sectors like education, war, prison provision etc.

For ordinary people in the old fashioned economy there has been asset value growth in housing. This growth in the financial and legacy economies is financed though credit, not through wage growth. Mass immigration and an intensifying attack on trades unions and workplace rights means that wage growth is effectively impossible under the Monetarist regime.

In other words there is an ever increasing reliance on money itself as a vehicle for creating value, not only for the financial elite but for society as a whole. Rather than reducing the financial sector in favour of the real economy, the real economy is being made ever more like the financial sector. This is what restructuring has turned out to mean.

Contrary to the rhetoric of the Neo Liberal project, the mass scale extension of credit is effectively creating a fully planned economy. But instead of governments, it is private credit agencies that increasingly decide what resources are allocated where. The financial and political elite are moving towards comprehensive planning without the political problem of having to admit that the free market is a mirage. This will be quite some trick if they can pull it off.

This is the Permanent Credit Economy. Where credit is not an optional decision, but a permanent necessity of economic life.

But there is a cost to the use of credit as the brain and the heart of the economy. As more and more people integrate more and more credit into all their economic activity, the ever increasing burden of interest payments diminish earning power at an even faster rate than immigration and deregulation does.

Wages have to be allocated to paying off the interest on student loans, mortgages, car loans, credit card and other unsecured debt . This money taken out of the commodity economy is one major cause of the deflation we are now seeing across the developed world. People simply don’t have as much money to spend on commodities as they used to have. In other words there is less and less discretionary spending; you have less and less choice where your money goes.

Increases in credit push up prices on student loans, mortgages, cars, and credit card debt. The more credit that is available the more can be charged for the things that are bought on credit. Were it not for the financialised restructuring of developed economies, the I Phone would cost no more than $200…

But even more insidious than the ratchet effects of interest and credit, is the control and planning effect of credit I refer to above. What you buy is increasingly determined by credit agencies. You are able to get credit for any purchase to the extent that the purchase has a commensurate value and to the extent that you are able to service the payments on that purchase. You can’t borrow $2000 to buy an old car that is only determined by the lender to be worth $1000. This is the flipside of the end of discretionary purchases, even if you are allowed to have the money (credit), you are not allowed to spend it as you wish.

Economies all across the developed world are now growing or not growing entirely to the extent that financial institutions are successful in getting people to take up the offer of credit. There has been some take up of credit for housing in Britain, the market has been goosed by government subsidy. This housing asset recovery is taking place in parts of America also. (San Francisco for example).

On the other hand the failure to take up credit is reflected in the gloomy headlines with regard to the economies of Europe and Japan. In Europe there is at best stagnation and more often contraction in housing credit. Japan is notorious for its domestic populations tendency to save and avoid credit. Shinzo Abe has resorted to shock and awe tactics to firebomb the savings of the Japanese public and force them into the speculative credit marketplace.

A recent article in the Huffington Post made explicit that George Osborne is counting on a further massive increase in secured and unsecured debt as the means to ‘grow’ the British economy.

The HP tells us that:

‘the Office for Budget Responsibility, …forecast that Britons will need to add £360bn over the five years to its levels of unsecured lending, which includes credit card debt, payday loans, and bank overdrafts’.

The £360bn figure represents a £41bn increase on the OBR’s forecasts just nine months ago and would take households’ unsecured lending, as a share of total household incomes, to a record 55%  by 2020. This would be well above the pre-financial crisis unsecured debt ratio of 44%.

And:

APPG member Willie Bain, member of the Commons business committee, told HuffPostUK:

“The chancellor promised in 2011 that the government would lead an export-led recovery, yet this week the share of growth coming from net trade was predicted to fall further in each of the next five years. As the Bank of England said recently, recovery needs to be based on policies which boost wage growth, raise productivity and create more higher skilled jobs. Growth based on soaring levels of personal debt is no recovery at all on living standards for millions of working people in Britain.”

 

Hand in hand with the extension of credit comes the shrinking of the real economy. When the real economy shrinks, the state that relies on the real economy is forced to shrink too:

This comes after the Institute for Fiscal Studies warned that Osborne has “colossal cuts” left to make in order to meet his deficit reduction plans that would leave the size of the state “changed beyond recognition”.

Despite ministers’ indications that the bulk of the austerity agenda is over, the economic thinktank said that just £35 billion of the cuts in spending by Whitehall departments have already happened, with £55 billion yet to come.

You cannot have a viable consumer society without a welfare state. The efficiencies and security that comes from knowing that education, health and housing are backstopped by the state means that people can afford to spend on consumer goods. Without this state guarantee, people are forced to take up private insurance to cover necessities. This is risk that has been transferred from collective provision to the individual.

This is money that no longer goes into the commodity economy which shrinks as a result. This shrinking in turn causes more redundancies and less income and lower tax receipts. Which shrinks the state, which further shrinks the economy, and the process starts all over again ratcheting ever tighter.

As reported in the Guardian:

[the data collected from the thinktank’s 34 rich country members] suggests it is inequality at the bottom of the distribution that hampers growth.”

Rising inequality is estimated to have knocked more than 10 percentage points off growth in Mexico and New Zealand, nearly nine points in the UK, Finland and Norway, and between six and seven points in the United States, Italy and Sweden.

The ‘old’ economy serviced by government issued is shrinking. The ‘new’ economy serviced by democratised money goes from strength to strength.

Indian fakirs are famous for holding an arm aloft for years and years at a time until it finally begins to shrink and wither away. It is a demonstration of extraordinary willpower. The population of the developed world has stood before the Monetarists with  hands in the air for six years now. They are withering away. Soon we will be past the point of no return.

Ideology 4- WHITEISM: Unbelievable or An Appetite for Wonder Bread

Bobo1De heathen back dey ‘pon de wall!
De heathen back, yeah, ‘pon de wall!
De heathen back dey ‘pon de wall!
De heathen back, yeah, ‘pon de wall!

Rise up fallen fighters;
Rise and take your stance again.
‘cos)he who fights and run away
live(s)to fight another day.
With de heathen back dey ‘pon de wall!

‘The Heathen’, Bob Marley

In an interview with Bill Maher on USA T.V.  Dickie Dawkins, Archbishop of Saxon Heathenism has offered us a glimpse into the midden that lies where his soul would be

D.D. is convinced that Barry Obama is an ‘atheist’ (makes a change from Muslim I suppose), an intimation for which he cannot offer any evidence, it’s just a feeling, a matter of faith, you might say. Why would he have such a feeling? you might ask. Why would it matter to him?

In the interview, Maher tells us that young Dickie was religious, an Anglican in fact, hoping to pass the assumption, hopefully unchallenged, that Anglicanism is something to do with Christianity. But as the name suggests ‘Anglicanism’ is clearly something primarily to do with Angles and Angleland. In other words, it is specifically a race cult.

It is forbidden for a Catholic to be King or Queen of Angleland and therefore head of the Anglican church, directly as a result of the rise of Anglicanism.

Which brings us DD’s next article of faith, that John Kennedy was really an atheist!
Of course, DD would really like to say that he believes JK was an Anglican, or at least a Protestant, after all, the king is forbidden to be anything else. But he can’t quite summon the courage for this, so he settles on atheist.

Atheist is code for German pagan.

The Germanic narrative goes:
NW Europe converted to Christianity over the period of the first millennium. After a while the Germanic people of NW Europe discovered that Catholicism was wrong to a greater or lesser degree and set out to reform it. The movement for reform led to a split and the creation of Protestantism which in turn splintered into differing forms of Christianity. After a while, as a result of progress and enlightenment, the protestants discovered that there is no such thing as God after all and became atheists. So it’s all natural and inevitable evolution and progress up to the point of atheism.

Let me offer you an alternative interpretation of events.

Christianity spread out from the Mediterranean northwards and westwards like a tsunami. The further spread from the epicenter, the more its force dissipated. By the time it got to the edges of North-West Europe it’s power was relatively weak. And like a wave, once it had reached its maximum point it began to recede.

This interpretation explains why only Germanic populations have become Protestant. The only alternative explanation is that Germanic people are inherently more progressive than Southern populations which brings us back to the Anglican race cult.

During the interview DD opines that : ‘People can’t bear clarity’. I wonder if he can see the clarity of his statement as he recalls an episode of early religiosity:

‘I thought this was calling me to promote.. not necessarily the Christian religion, but some kind of religion..’

Indeed. That religion turned out to be German Paganism.

Watch it here:

Say: Woe to the downpressors:
They’ll eat the bread of sorrow!
Woe to the downpressors:
They’ll eat the bread of sad tomorrow

‘Guiltiness’ Bob Marley